Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00520)

> Using  the word
>determinism is just a pretext for evading the rationale behind
>the theosophical point of view, ...

Well, I will have to admit that you guys either just don't
get what I am trying to say (in which case I am to blame
for poor English or poor expression) or you are so
enmeshed in your own interpretation of Theosophy
that you can't or won't even try to see an alternative
interpretation (and if anyone says that there is no
interpreting, then I am through all discussion).

The exoteric idea of karma alias causality IS deterministic
and is exactly what chaos theory means by determinism
(predictable because every action leads to an effect and
every action has a cause for ever). There is NO pretext.
And, as far as I am concerned, it is you people who see
karma as deterministic who are evading the real issue.
Furthermore, just what the hell is "the Theosophical point
of view?"  (cap T here, please).  HPB? Judge? Besant?
G de P? etc. I have been under the impression (wrong?)
that there are exoteric teachings (easy to understand surface
teachings) and esoteric teachings (much deeper and
even paradoxical at times). I grant that karma as deterministic
(meaning that the future continues forever as the effect of
the past and is fully predictable if we only had more data)
can be found in the Theosophical literature, especially in
Judge who taught little esotericism (IMO). But the idea
of chaos or unpredictability (i.e., that the future is a
realm of possibilities) is also found between the lines
of HPB's writings together with the idea of inherent human
limits (which she calls Rings-Pass-Not). Calling one
or the other viewpoint (ie., either exoteric or esoteric)
"real" Theosophy is very misleading because it is NOT
an either or situation. Thus, I have to insist that what I
am saying is just as "Theosophical" as what anyone
else is saying.


>Chaos-theory just points to the fact that life finds its
>equilibrium at the verge of order and dis-order and constitutes
>in the words of David Bohm exactly an "Implicit Order".

I would hardly limit its findings to "just" that. However, what
you say here, a well-demonstrated truism, shows that we
living beings require chaos (alias free will and change) as much
as order (alias permanancy and stagnation) and and this idea
seems anathema to Dallas and others.


>Remember, that in antiquity, the expression Chaos refered to the
>homogeneity of undifferentiated cosmic substance -before
>differentiation- (do I hear anyone shout pre-big-bang concept ?)
>and not to disorder.
>Pete.


I have to disagree with your notion of "homogeneity."  Undifferentiated
cosmic substance has ever been called Chaos (or Prakriti) but
it is NOT homogeneous (a characteristic of order) and never was.

Jerry S.